Green Chip Stockshttp://www.greenchipstocks.comGreen Chip Stocks is your personal guide to investing in green, sustainable, alternative, and renewable energy stocks.en-USThu, 17 Jul 2014 11:11:01 PDThttp://www.greenchipstocks.comhttp://images.greenchipstocks.com/gcs.gifGreen Chip StocksThe Democratization of Renewable Energyhttp://feeds.greenchipstocks.com/~r/greenstocks/~3/p5h74pE3oX4/2243Jeff SiegelThu, 17 Jul 2014 11:11:01 PDT2243Although I've done quite well over the years investing in publicly-traded renewable energy companies, the opportunity to get something more tangible for my investment dollars has always been very attractive. I'm talking about actually owning a piece of a real project, like a wind farm or micro-grid.

Fortunately, I've been given many opportunities to join accredited investors in early investment rounds for a number of these types of projects. Basically getting a piece of the action that simply wasn't available for those who couldn't invest a minimum of at least $50,000.

Certainly this is not something I'm complaining about. However, in an effort to help facilitate the continued integration of renewable energy, this avenue can only take us so far as it excludes thousands of other investors who can't directly invest in specific renewable energy projects because they simply don't have the kind of money needed to meet those minimum requirements.

For instance, a few years ago I had the opportunity to invest in a small wind farm in California. The minimum investment was $100k. Most folks don't have that kind of money lying around. But I assure you, had the opportunity to invest in that same wind farm been available with a minimum investment of say $5,000 or $10,000 – there would've been a line out the door.

The fact is, there are droves of investors who are not only looking for a nice little profit, but are looking to invest their hard-earned money in companies that are aligned with their own personal beliefs regarding the importance of sustainability and cleaner energy and transportation fuels.

The bottom line is that there's no shortage of folks who want to see more wind farms and solar panels instead of more coal-fired power plants. And they're willing to pony up a few bucks to see that happen – especially if there's a solid return on that investment.

So it should come as no surprise that I am a huge advocate of renewable energy crowdfunding.

The Evolution of Renewable Energy Financing

More and more I am convinced that the democratization of renewable energy is upon us thanks to the development of crowdfunding platforms and initiatives.

These are essentially operations that allow for the funding of renewable energy projects by raising small amounts of money from a large group of people.

Overall, crowdfunding operations (not just those backing renewable energy projects) raised about $5 billion in 2013. That number is expected to double to $10 billion in 2014. Now compare that to the $500 million raised just four years prior.

The truth is, crowdfunding is really evolving into a major vehicle for financing. Although perhaps “evolving” isn't really the correct term to use as “evolving” suggests a slow transition. And there's nothing slow about how quickly folks are turning to crowdfunding to finance their projects – particularly in the world of renewable energy and sustainability.

Using Capitalism as a Catalyst for Positive Change

Over the years, I have used this site, as well as my commentary on Energy & Capital to educate investors regarding the opportunities in renewable energy, organic food markets and sustainable business practices. I've used this platforms to make specific stock recommendations, too. But with the growth and success of renewable energy crowdfunding, I now plan to provide additional coverage and analysis on these opportunities as well.

Going forward, every week I will highlight a new crowdfunding opportunity that fits in with the overall message of Green Chip Stocks – using capitalism as a catalyst for positive change. This week. . .

Abundance Generation

To put it simply, Abundance Generation offers regular folks the opportunity to invest in various renewable energy projects which pay regular cash returns using debentures.

Debentures are certificates or contracts that represent loans you have made to a company. They're similar to bonds, but pay a proportion of your capital back every six months, instead of paying everything at the end.

There are three types of debentures that Abundance offers. . .

Variable Return – Returns are linked to the energy produced. As a result, these returns can vary from one period to the next.

Fixed Return – You receive the same fixed amount regardless of the energy produced by the project.

Inflation-linked – Capital and interest payments are linked to movements in inflation.

An advantage to debentures is that because they are not listed on a stock exchange, the value of those debentures doesn't fluctuate with the financial markets. It's a great way to diversify your risk.

For Ten Bucks. . .

Now only a couple of years old, Abundance Generation has already successfully funded eight wind and solar projects offering returns of between 6.3% and 9.3%. And there are another eleven projects now in the pipeline: Two solar projects, eight wind projects and one hydro project.

To date, Abundance has raised about $10 million with regular folks investing as little as $10.

]]>Renewable energy crowdfunding will be a major game-changer. http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/investing-in-renewable-energy-crowdfunding/2243SunEdison's Transformative Solar Yieldcohttp://feeds.greenchipstocks.com/~r/greenstocks/~3/53khDQu02Ys/2242Tim ConneallyTue, 15 Jul 2014 09:13:28 PDT2242SunEdison (NYSE: SUNE), the company formerly known as MEMC Electronic Materials, is undergoing a reinvention, and its latest phase could make a lot of money.

Just two years ago, MEMC looked like it was going to crumble like its competitors Abound Solar Inc. and Solyndra LLC. The government's solar tax credits expired, it endured quarter after quarter of negative profit, laid off 20% of its workforce, and was downgraded by two major credit rating agencies.

Things looked grave.

Fortunately, a broader trend in the energy industry had the capacity to put MEMC back on the right track, and one of the company's directors believed it could work.

The trend was the renewable yieldco, and the director was Altai Capital executive Steve Tesoriere. By spinning off SunEdison's semiconductor business into a new company (NASDAQ: SEMI) and its solar properties into a yieldco called TerraForm Power (NASDAQ: TERP), the company simultaneously shifted its focus to solar energy and mitigated some of the risk associated with the space.

Like SEMI back in May, TERP is going public.

The Yieldco

Since 2013, half a dozen energy companies have created yieldcos for their renewable energy projects, and all of them have performed strongly. TerraForm Power is following their lead.

Take a look at these yieldcos which all went public within the last year.

Yieldcos behave like Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) or Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs). The company owns assets that already produce cash, and a minimum percentage of earnings are paid out in the form of dividends. Because these energy companies get their cash from long-term power purchasing agreements, their cash flow is extremely predictable and can sustain a high yield. This makes them highly attractive to capital investors, especially when interest rates are low.

In a panel discussion at the Chadbourne Global Energy and Finance Conference last year, the CFO of K Road Power, Carl Weatherley-White, explained the value of yieldcos in the following way:

“For a company like K Road that has developing assets, a yieldco is a possible future way of financing our assets. Investors are willing to pay more for assets that have a proven history than for those that are merely under development. Separating the more volatile activities of development and construction from the more stable and less volatile cash flows of operating assets is a good choice. NRG recently filed an initial public offering for a portfolio of contracted assets in the hope of attracting capital at lower cost.”

Renewable energy projects face a lot of uncertainty when they're developing, but have low-risk cash flows after they're built. These yieldcos consolidate their low-risk cash flows into a single, tax advantaged entity.

SunEdison first filed for the TerraForm Power IPO in February 2014, and planned to raise $401 million in funds by offering 20.1 million shares at a price between $19 and $21. The median of the proposed share price range would put the company at a market value of $2 billion.

TerraForm Power formed in 2014 and posted $26 million in bookings for the year ending on March 31, 2014. According to the company's S-1 filing with the SEC, it had a 3.6 GW pipeline of “development-stage solar projects, and approximately 1.9 GW of self-developed and third party developed solar power generation assets under management.”

SunEdison has been beefing up its solar assets in anticipation of this IPO.

In June, SunEdison made the largest acquisition of solar assets in Massachusetts history when it bought 50 MW of PV projects from BlueWave Capital LLC. Then in July, it acquired a 50% stake in the Silver Ridge Power JV for its retained photovoltaic power plants. Through its stake in the joint venture, SunEdison (or TerraForm Power) will own 50% of 336 MW solar power plant operating projects and a 40% stake in the Tenaska Imperial Solar Energy Center West 183 MW facility which will be completed in 2016.

In short, SunEdison is putting its solar projects in TerraForm Power, and then commanding a big stake in the company so it can tap the markets for cash at a cost significantly lower than a bank loan. The result is a high-yield, low risk security that capitalizes on our currently low interest rates that will fund the expansion of higher risk energy projects under SUNE.

]]>SunEdison has fought back from the gates of Hell and is finally spinning off its solar yieldco.PEGINYLDSEMITERPABYBEPSUNEHASIhttp://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/terraform-power-nasdaq-terp-ipo/2242Whole Foods will not go gently into that Good Nighthttp://feeds.greenchipstocks.com/~r/greenstocks/~3/Gb4Vju_rzKA/2241Jeff SiegelMon, 14 Jul 2014 09:24:36 PDT2241Yesterday morning, I got to Whole Foods early. I like to get there just as they open so I don't have to maneuver around the droves of weekend shoppers that typically overrun the place by 10:00.

I also like getting first shot at the produce before its picked over by what often look like ravenous vultures that haven't been fed in days.

This week, strawberries and raspberries were on sale, so I doubled up. The organic peaches smelled exquisite, so I secured about a half dozen of those, too. I didn't buy much in the way of vegetables as our local farmers' market is now overwhelmed with delicious, local, organic veggies. Beets, kale, collards, cauliflower, squash. I'm telling you, this time of year is like Christmas for me.

Of course, as much as I love our farmers' market, there are just certain things for which I always rely on Whole Foods. Cereal, rice, bread, yogurt, pasta and milk. The milk is actually from a local dairy, but I'm able to pick up my weekly supply at Whole Foods, thereby making it much easier than traveling 40 minutes out to the farm.

That's one of the things I like about Whole Foods. I like the fact that this is the store that, for almost two decades now has provided me with my nutritional wants and needs. And despite the claim that Whole Foods is only for the wealthy who can afford to spend a lot of money on groceries (thus the moniker “Whole Paycheck”), I've always found the prices to be competitive with the conventional grocery stores – and in some cases, even cheaper.

Whole Paycheck

The “Whole Paycheck” label is a bit misleading, actually. Yes, if you go to Whole Foods and buy high-end cheeses, prepared foods, and specialty items you are going to pay a pretty penny. But that's the case with any store that carries those types of things.

I also take issue with this idea that shopping at Whole Foods is somehow associated with snobbery.

Truth is, at our local Whole Foods, the staff has always been beyond friendly. And it's not as if I roll into the store in a suit and tie. You'll typically find me doing my shopping in my gym clothes.

I'm also not sure why a store, that goes out of its way to provide local, nutritionally-superior food is equated with snobbery. The way I see it, the big conventional grocery stores that barely give local producers the time of day seem a bit more snobbish to me. Are small, local farmers not as important as giant faceless corporations? Most of which, by the way, can only exist as the profitable ventures they are due to some very generous government subsidies?

Bullish on Whole Foods

As an investor, I also find it beyond irritating that whenever Whole Foods (NASDAQ:WFM) hits a bump in the road, every trend-chasing analyst comes out blasting the retailer. They did this when the company first went public, then quickly retreated like the dirty roaches they are when the light of profitability was illuminated by market forces.

They did it again after the market tanked in 2008, only to quickly take cover in the dark walls of incompetence after the stock soared 600% over the course of the next few years. And now they're doing it again – screaming from the rooftops that new competition from the likes of Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT), Sprouts (NASDAQ:SFM) and Fresh Market (NASDAQ:TFM) represent the death knell for Whole Foods.

While I agree that there is a lot more competition in the space these days, Whole Foods is not going gently into that good night.

Not only is the organic food retailer a behemoth that locked in a first-mover advantage many years ago, but it's following is perhaps one of the most loyal you'll find. Of course, that can still only get you so far. Admittedly, loyalty can be tested by the convenience of picking up your favorite organic foods at the same place you buy your electronics and underwear. But the key for Whole Foods, in my opinion, is management.

CEO John Mackey is a beast. The guy built an empire that was harshly criticized when the company first went public to a room full of Wall Street crickets. His philosophy of business was the antithesis of what had long been considered “the way to do business.” Yet here is today, worth something like $100 million. Whole Foods' is worth something like $13 billion. The guy knows what he's doing. And folks who believe that he's now going to be forced to take his ball and go home because there's more competition around are fooling themselves.

The truth is, the company is still reporting record sales, management continues to remain aggressive on growth, and I've yet to walk into any Whole Foods store and find it empty.

Those who choose to dismiss the long-term value of Whole Foods due to this recent sell-off are going to miss out. Just like those who missed out when the company first went public, and just like those who abandoned hope for the retailer after the market crashed in 2008.

I remain bullish on Whole Foods and maintain by one-year, $45 price target on the stock.

I also remain bullish on Whole Foods as a company that has showed the world that you can build a profitable business by maintaining high ethical standards and just doing the right thing along the way.

Most recently we found out that a newly-discovered leak has forced the shutdown of a cooling system. And if not repaired within the next seven days, temperatures could bypass what are considered dangerous levels.

According to investigators, Fukushima actually has about a week to prevent unsafe overheating.

As reported by RT.com. . .

Engineers have discovered that 1,300 liters of water leaked from a cooling system intended to stabilize the temperature of the spent fuel at the Reactor Unit 5, which was offline but loaded with fuel rods when the plant was damaged by the earthquake and tsunami in March 2011.

The source of the leak was a 3 mm-diameter hole near a flow valve, a statement published by the Japanese energy giant on Sunday asserts. However it is unclear from company data if the location of the opening has been discovered, or whether it was calculated with flow measurements.

At the time when the cooling system was switched off at around 12pm on Sunday, the temperature in the pool in which the rods are submerged was 23C but started increasing by 0.193 degrees per hour, TEPCO says.

If no new cold water is pumped in at such rate it will reach the dangerous threshold of 65C by the midpoint of the month in roughly 9 days.

This article came out two days ago, by the way.

More Solar, Please

I don't care what anyone says, Japan's nuclear power problems are far from over.

There is, however, some good news coming out of Japan

We recently learned that Deutsche Bank has announced plans to lend Japan $1 billion for new solar projects. This will be enough to provide financing for as many as six new projects in the next year or two.

Of course, this isn't the first megabank to bankroll solar projects in Japan.

Goldman Sachs has also been investing hundreds of millions of dollars in Japan's booming solar market. And according to Toru Inoue, vice president at Goldman's Infrastructure and Structured Financing Group in Japan, at least three of twelve solar power plants that Goldman helped organize through investor funding are already producing power.

Although solar cannot provide baseload power the way nuclear can, I suspect there will continue to be a steady flow of capital into Japan's solar market. And that's a good thing.

]]>Fukushima continues to be a huge disaster. Hopefully there will be more big solar funding deals like the one Deutsche Bank is now spearheading. http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/deutsche-bank-ponies-up-1-billion-for-solar-projects-in-japan/2240Fuel Cell vs. Battery: Who WIll Win?http://feeds.greenchipstocks.com/~r/greenstocks/~3/5Z1xw6uQicI/2238Tim ConneallyMon, 07 Jul 2014 08:55:00 PDT2238More than a decade ago, former president George W. Bush made a profound claim in his State of the Union address:

“The first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen...pollution-free.”

It seems difficult to believe now, but when kids born in 2003 turn sixteen, Bush's statement will undoubtedly have come true.

In 2015, there will be three different hydrogen fuel cell cars on the market, and several hundred hydrogen fuel stations in the fueling infrastructure. By 2020, there will be even more.

Contrary to Bush's hopes, however, they probably won't be American cars.

South Korean car company Hyundai released its fuel cell-powered Tucson sport utility vehicle in the spring, and Japanese automaker Toyota (NYSE: TM) is slated to release its Fuel Cell Vehicle (FCV) in the United States next summer. These two Asian companies follow Honda, who blazed the trail with its FCX Clarity back in 2007.

When Bush made his prediction back in 2003, he was offering $1.2 billion in research funding he said would enable the United States to “lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.”

In 2009, the government cut back its funding of fuel cell research. US Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu said that fuel cell technology had four major hurdles to overcome before it could be economically viable: hydrogen needed to be cheaper, it needed a new high density storage mechanism, more fuel cells needed to be made and sold, and refueling infrastructure needed to be built.

Chu said the technology still had up to 20 years before it would be practical, and that “the government preferred to focus on projects that would bear fruit more quickly.”

The technology that would bear fruit more quickly was battery power, so the Dept. of Energy upped its funding for Electric Vehicles.

But the shale gas boom changed Chu's tune.

Hydrogen is extracted from natural gas; so with cheap natural gas, there's cheap hydrogen. This knocked down one of the four hurdles. In 2012, the Department of Energy announced a two-year program to monitor and evaluate the hydrogen infrastructure within the United States. That would be the second hurdle.

While the Department of Energy has given fuel cells an improved outlook, others haven't lightened their skepticism.

The war against fossil fuel-burning cars is still being fought by separate factions.

In public appearances over the last three years, he has variously called them “fool cells,” and “a load of rubbish.”

There are only a thousand fuel cell vehicles on the road today, and Hybrid and Battery-powered electric cars are undoubtedly more popular; But the advantages and disadvantages of fuel cell electric cars are extremely similar to those belonging to Tesla's battery-operated cars.

For one thing, they're both expensive. Toyota's FCV is expected to cost upwards of $70,000, while Tesla's Model S has a suggested retail price of just a hundred dollars less. Neither one of these cars is going to receive mass market adoption, but instead they are going to dwell in the highly competitive luxury vehicle niche.

Secondly, they both lack a cohesive refueling infrastructure when compared to petroleum. According to Toyota, there are only 40-50 Hydrogen refueling stations across the country, and these are comprised of several different types of station. According to Fuel Cell Today's 2013 synopsis, there were only 208 Hydrogen fueling stations in the whole world.

Though charging stations have a jump on hydrogen refueling stations in terms of volume, there is still a battle of charging standards in progress. Tesla has open sourced its quickcharge patents for free use, but a broader coalition of car companies has gotten behind the CHAdeMO DC quick charge standard.

Thirdly, both are heavily affected by government subsidies, and their adoption could be shaped equally by the tax credits available to consumers.

The Conflict

The fact of the matter is that Tesla wants to sell batteries, period.

It plans to build its “gigafactory” and improve the economics of scale for the whole electric vehicle industry. Then, when major car companies pick up the pace with their own electric car development, Tesla's position as a component supplier will be set in stone.

If fuel cells take off, Tesla loses.

But the outcome in America is entirely contingent upon the Hydrogen refueling infrastructure, which is miles behind the EV charging infrastructure, even with its conflicting standards.

With so few fueling stations, the demand for fuel cell cars is choked, and with no demand for cars, there's no need for fueling stations. Hyundai called this a “chicken or egg” problem when it released its Tucson fuel cell SUV this year.

By introducing the vehicle first, Hyundai was trying to break this cycle. It's undoubtedly cheaper than building out the whole fueling infrastructure first.

With battery-powered cars this problem doesn't exist, all they require is an appropriate charger to tap into the grid. There is no equivalent for hydrogen.

Is this sole reason enough to put all your money behind electric cars? Of course not, but it's enough of a reason to give companies like Tesla a head start in the market.

]]>Toyota and Hyundai both have Fuel Cell cars hitting the market, but they are lagging behind battery-powered electric cars.TSLAFCVTMhttp://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/tesla-nasdaqtsla-versus-fuel-cells/2238Arizona Citizens Lose Big on State's Fight Against Solarhttp://feeds.greenchipstocks.com/~r/greenstocks/~3/d9C69C6iUug/2239Jeff SiegelMon, 07 Jul 2014 07:27:06 PDT2239Arizona is a beautiful state with miles of pristine desert and mind-blowing sunsets that would make even an atheist step back and consider the enormity of what God has created. But Arizona is also home to quite a few holier-than-though, fake conservatives and fake free-market supporters. And if you need a recent example, look no further than the Arizona Revenue Department, which recently began distributing valuation notices to solar companies that are involved in the business of solar leases because they now want to impose property taxes on leased solar panels.

Why would they want to do such a thing? Why would the state of Arizona, which lawmakers claim is an oasis of free market capitalism in the United States want to tax its residents even more? I'll tell you why. . .

Because some of these lawmakers have it out for solar. They have it out for any form of power generation that is not derived from a fossil fuel. Partly because most of these lawmakers have their campaigns funded by fossil fuel interests, and partly because most of these lawmakers are afraid to have anyone in their home state think they actually give a shit about alternative energy. You know, because that would somehow make them socialist sympathizers.

So here we are today, watching yet another attack on solar take place in Arizona, only this time by way of taxation. Or as most of us true liberty seekers see it – theft.

Fortunately, not everyone in Arizona is taking this lying down. In fact, we got word today that SolarCity (NASDAQ:SCTY) and SunRun are filing a law suit against the Arizona Department of revenue. The two companies claim that these new taxes would wipe out the savings from solar leasing and severely slow solar-power growth in Arizona.

Sadly, that's exactly what some gatekeepers of Arizona law want.

Of course, even if the good folks of Arizona miss out on the economic advantages of utilizing solar leasing programs, Arizona lawmakers can't stop this train. The solar industry is booming across the globe, and will continue to do so for decades to come. And if Arizona, which boasts a massive solar resource, misses out, so be it. After all, I do believe in states' rights. It's just a shame that some politicians and bureaucrats in Arizona are battling the solar industry with theft, lies and manipulation. And it'll be the citizens of Arizona that lose if they get their way.

]]>Lawmakers in Arizona fight to keep solar off roofs. SCTYhttp://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/arizona-lawmakers-fight-solar-with-taxation/2239Will Tesla's Next Car Cost you $25,000?http://feeds.greenchipstocks.com/~r/greenstocks/~3/h9SXwiPWITg/2237Jeff SiegelWed, 02 Jul 2014 07:53:00 PDT2237While I've long been an outspoken supporter of Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA), as well as a huge fan of both Elon Musk and the Model S, it is the company's smaller version of the Model S that gets me most excited.

The bottom line is that cost will be the determining factor for most Americans considering electric cars. After all, you'd be hard-pressed to find many folks who wouldn't love to own a Model S. But at around $75,000, few can afford it.

Of course, the vision of Tesla is not one based solely around supplying high-end vehicles to high-net worth individuals. Although the Roadster, Model S and Model X are out-of-reach for most, it could be Tesla's smaller, yet more affordable electric sedan that will bring in the masses. Not just to look and crave, but to buy.

An Affordable Tesla

According to Tesla VP of engineering Chris Porritt, Tesla's new, smaller sedan will be “realistically” priced against the likes of Audi A4 and BMW 3-series. So we're talking about $35,000 on the low-end.

$35,000 is still a lot of scratch to pony up for a vehicle, but over the course of seven years (the average length of car ownership for a single vehicle in the U.S.), customers could end up saving about $15,000 on “fuel” costs (based on data from the Michigan Transportation Research Insitute), as home-grown electricity will always be cheaper than 87 octane. Of course, those savings will vary from state to state.

But even if customers only saved $10,000 on fuel costs over the course of seven years, that's a pretty significant savings that ultimately deducts one-third off the cost of the vehicle. A smaller, Tesla Model S for $25,000? Yes please!

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA), he said, is now the most important car company in the world.

“We are not joking,” Jonas added with gravity.

It's been a company for just over ten years, and it's only been profitable for a single year; yet according to Morgan Stanley it's at the top of a $900 billion global industry. It's a radical notion, but Tesla is a radical company.

It has established itself as a growing force in American manufacturing, forged a strong supply chain, and thoroughly disrupted competition by open-sourcing its quick-charge intellectual property.

Those latter two factors are closely intertwined, and are helping Tesla improve its global standing even further. This week, the electric car division of India's second-biggest automaker Mahindra and Mahindra began examining Tesla's quick-charge technology for potential adoption.

Chetan Maini, CEO and Founder of Mahindra Reva said, "We will review [the patents]...it's too early to comment on the direct benefit to us."

Though Maini is not commenting on Tesla's patents just yet, it's an important development to consider because Mahindra Reva has the same outlook on charging as Tesla.

Ramifications

Though Mahindra Reva is a name unfamiliar to most Americans, it actually began its life as Amerigon Electric Vehicle Technologies (AEVT) in the US in the mid-90's. Its mission was to create affordable subcompact electric cars for the Indian market and suppliers included American companies Curtis Instruments, Prestolite Electric, and TDI Power subsidiary Modular Power Systems.

Over the next decade, the company changed its name to REVA, and released a series of electric vehicles under the same name: these included the REVA, REVAi, REVA L-ion, and REVA NXR.

In 2011, India's second largest consumer automobile company Mahindra and Mahindra took a controlling stake of Reva. Mahindra had spent the last decade building up its portfolio of green vehicles, including diesel hybrids and three-wheeled electric cars. Reva's business was complementary to Mahindra's.

At the time of the acquisition, chairman and director Anand Mahindra said “With issues such as climate change and carbon footprint taking center stage globally, eco-friendly transportation becomes the need of the hour. Mahindra already has an established sustainable mobility solutions program and our association with Reva will only help us further expand our green footprint both in India and overseas.”

Of course, the combined company still didn't form a complete picture. Like the US' electric car market, there wasn't a single ubiquitous charging standard.

When Mahindra Reva rolled out its first Quick2Charge station in Bangalore in the beginning of 2014, Chetan Maini made his rounds with the media. In one interview he said the following:

“We are looking at public-private-partnerships because, you know, it is a business. We will kickstart it, but the model has to move in that direction. We have made [our charging system] compatible with all our products coming later on. So the Verito and the Maximo or the Gio will be same. In time, we will have standards available for other OEMs also, in case they want to use it. So in a way, [we] keep the standards open. Our thought process is to start it because someone has to.”

“We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform. Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers. We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard.”

Maini built Reva from the ground up, but eventually conceded that his company needed the clout of a major automobile manufacturer to seize the growing opportunities in electric transportation. When Mahindra and Mahindra took control of Reva, it was the twenty-sixth largest automobile company in the world.

It was larger than Volvo, Porsche, Isuzu, and dozens of Chinese car manufacturers.

Mahindra Reva, meanwhile, is still a small player in the developing EV landscape. The company's primary market is the United Kingdom, where it moved about 1,000 cars in FY2012. Its sales target for 2015-2016 is 30,000 units globally, so clearly it sees potential.

But more importantly, its founder is fully on board with the open source philosophy that Elon Musk thinks is the key to success.

With open standards, electric car companies can spend less time competing with each other, and more time developing the ecosystem to compete against petroleum-burning cars.

]]>Morgan Stanley analysts have given Tesla the title "most important car company in the world," and the world has already taken note. TSLAAEVThttp://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/tesla-nasdaq-tsla-is-taking-over-the-world/2236Playing the Alternative Energy Market with Abengoa Yieldhttp://feeds.greenchipstocks.com/~r/greenstocks/~3/Y8Pkcgeiy8g/2235Jeff SiegelTue, 24 Jun 2014 10:32:36 PDT2235If you're a regular reader of these pages, you know I'm bullish on alternative energy yieldcos.

The way I see it, yieldcos are the next big alternative energy investments for retail investors. They enable regular investors to buy into multiple alternative energy assets that produce steady cash flow. For those not particularly keen on risk, but still want exposure to the burgeoning alternative energy space, this is a great way to do it.

The bottom line is that the alternative energy market continues to grow rapidly. Even those who are loyal oil & gas investors must admit that the growth potential in the alternative energy space – particularly solar and wind – is absolutely astounding. And this is not a trend that will peter out any time soon.

In fact, according to Bloomberg's New Energy Finance, 70 percent of new power generation capacity added between 2012 and 20130 will be from alternative energy technologies. This is huge.

Point is, there is no reason for you to not have at least a small portion of your portfolio dedicated to the alternative energy space. So you might want to take a look at the latest alternative energy yieldco to go public.

Strong Debut for Abengoa Yield

The company is Abengoa Yield (NASDAQ:ABY). This is a unit that was formed to serve as the primary vehicle through which Abengoa, the Spanish energy behemoth, will own, manage and acquire renewable energy assets. Conventional power and transmission assets are also included in the yieldco.

The IPO surged nearly 30% on its debut. Initially priced at $29 a share, it's now trading around $39. Of course, it's only been a week, and certainly the initial enthusiasm of the offering likely pushed the price up. But overall, I actually like ABY.

Abengoa is actually one of the strongest alternative energy players in the world. It has first-mover advantage in certain areas, and has well-diversified coverage across the globe with revenue-generating assets in North America, South America and Europe.

Currently, ABY owns 11 total assets which include 710 megawatts of renewables, 300 megawatts of conventional generation and 1,018 miles of transmission.

I didn't jump in early on the IPO, but will be looking to pick some up on a shake-out. The lockup doesn't end until December 10, too. So that should allow for some wiggle room throughout the summer and fall.

Of all the alternative energy yieldcos trading publicly right now, I foresee the most safety with ABY.

]]>A great way to safely play the alternative energy market is with yieldcos. Abengoa is the latest to launch one.PEGINYLDABYhttp://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/is-abengoa-yield-nasdaqaby-a-buy/2235Arizona Homeowner Sees Solar Lease as a Liabilityhttp://feeds.greenchipstocks.com/~r/greenstocks/~3/i4QkX2sZYTQ/2234Jeff SiegelTue, 24 Jun 2014 08:24:34 PDT2234There was a piece in Bloomberg today entitled: Rooftop Solar Leases Scaring Buyers When Homeowners Sell.

The article began as follows. . .

Dorian Bishopp blames the solar panels on his roof for costing him almost 10 percent off the value of the home he sold in March.

That's because instead of owning them he leased the panels from SunPower Corp. (NASDAQ:SPWR), requiring the new owner of the house to assume a contract with almost 19 years remaining. He had to shave the asking price for the house in Maricopa, Arizona, to draw in buyers unfamiliar with the financing arrangement.

First of all, this makes no sense.

The down payment has already been made on the lease (assuming he made one), and going forward, the panels will provide a savings on electricity. It is extremely unlikely the new homeowner would be paying more with the solar lease.

Second, blaming solar panels for a 10% cut on the value of a home is beyond ridiculous. No one told Dorian Bishopp to lease a solar power system. And certainly he knew the deal going in. If he was so uncertain about it, he shouldn't have purchased the lease.

In the same article, a Florida home appraiser by the name of Sandy Adomatis chimed in, saying, “Homeowners don't understand what they're signing when they get into this. You've got another layer to add on top of finding a buyer for the house. It's not a plus.”

How is offering a potential buyer the opportunity to buy a home with a lower electricity payment a bad thing?

I don't know. Maybe it's like that in Florida, where the entire state is baked by the sun, but the government is one of the most hostile when it comes to integrating solar. Or maybe because there seems to be an overwhelming number of folks in Florida who still believe that going solar is somehow equated to socialism.

Adomatis also said that for many potential buyers, a solar lease is a liability rather than an asset.

With solar leases, everything is taken care of. The insurance, the inverters, the maintenance. And again, it provides the home owner with cheaper electricity bills. This is not a liability. At least not to anyone with an even an ounce of common sense.

SolarCity (NASDAQ:SCTY) spokesman Jonathan Bass made a valid point when he said. . .

They're essentially moving into a home with a lower cost of ownership, a lower cost of energy, so a solar lease shouldn't make it harder to sell a house. It becomes a selling point instead of a point of misunderstanding.

Of course, I suppose common sense doesn't amount to much when you're trying to unload a house in a state where there's an overwhelming majority of knuckle-draggers. Still, for every Dorian Bishopp out there who struggled to sell a home with the value of cheaper electricity, there's probably five others with solar leases who were able to offer those leases as a value add. Because that's exactly what it is.

In fact, for SolarCity, transferring leases has become so common, the company has had to create a team that exclusively handles about 150 transfers per month due to the growing demand for the service. I suspect this will be the trend going forward.

This is also one of the reasons I recommended picking SolarCity up on the last big dip below $50. I do hope you picked some up, as the stock has soared back over the $70 mark over the past couple of weeks.

]]>Are solar leases assets or liabilities? That all depends on who you ask.SCTYSPWRhttp://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/only-idiots-are-scared-of-solar/2234Time to Buy Whole Foods (NASDAQ:WFM)http://feeds.greenchipstocks.com/~r/greenstocks/~3/na9RcJRYTmQ/2233Jeff SiegelMon, 23 Jun 2014 07:39:46 PDT2233One of the first lessons I ever learned about investing was to only invest in things you understand.

With that small bit of knowledge, one of the first stocks I ever bought was Whole Foods (NASDAQ:WFM).

As a loyal customer ever since I first stepped foot into a Whole Foods outlet, I knew this company pretty well. At least from the perspective of a customer and a consumer of organic foods.

When our Baltimore location first opened up back in the 1990s, it was the only place where I could get a variety of reasonably-priced organic and natural food items. Outside of the summertime farmers markets, Whole Foods served as a sort of healthy food oasis for me. And I thanked the company with my purchasing power, and my investment dollars.

The result of my stake in Whole Foods was a positive one. The value of my portfolio certainly grew after adding shares of Whole Foods, and the company also served as a great recommendation for my thousands of daily readers.

In fact, after the financial implosion of 2008/2009, Whole Foods was actually one of the first stocks I recommended to my readers. The stock, like pretty much everything else during that time, got crushed. At one point, Whole Foods was actually trading below $10 a share. That's also around the time I told investors to buy.

Here's how that worked out. . .

Now last month, after many years of incredible performance, the stock took a nasty hit after missing estimates. The consensus was revenue of $3.34 billion and earnings per share of $0.41. Whole Foods delivered $3.3 billion and earnings per share of $0.38. Guidance was also lowered, which I suspect was the main catalyst for the sell-off.

Just Like the Last Time

Just like the last time we saw a sell-off with Whole Foods (after the recession hit), a number of analysts pointed to increased competition, noting that Whole Foods would suffer as companies like Wal-Mart and Costco expanded into the organic food space.

At the time, that threat was minimal at best, as none of the big box retailers had a wealth of organic and sustainably-produced foods and products. Of course, these days, it's a little different. From Wal-Mart and Costco to Kroger and Sprouts, there's definitely much more competition today than compared to 2008. And yes, I do believe that this competition is finally having an effect on Whole Foods. However, Whole Foods still has the first-mover advantage. As well, there are quality issues that many Whole Foods customers seek. Quality that, for the most part, is not going to be found at any of your big box retailers or giant grocery store chains.

Despite this recent setback, the company continues to expand aggressively, and I've yet to ever walk into an empty Whole Foods. I suspect the price advantages Wal-Mart and Costco can offer will bite into a bit of Whole Foods' market share, but I'm not convinced it's enough for a mass exodus from the stock. In fact, I would argue that this recent sell-off should be used as a buying opportunity. Currently I have a one-year, $45 price target on the stock.

]]>It's been beaten down pretty good. It might be time to pick up a few shares of Whole Foods on the recent dip. WFMhttp://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/buy-whole-foods-nasdaqwfm-on-the-dip/2233Company You've Never Heard Of is Outselling Teslahttp://feeds.greenchipstocks.com/~r/greenstocks/~3/f-kKWI8fC88/2232Tim ConneallyFri, 20 Jun 2014 09:08:28 PDT2232For the last five years, China has shown strong demand for small battery-powered vehicles such as electric bicycles. Market research firm Navigant Research recently showed that nine out of every ten e-bikes is sold in China.

But e-bikes are for single riders making short trips, and China has officially been recognized as the largest automobile market in the world since 2013, as cities have grown and commutes lengthen.

It's the perfect place for electric cars.

Even if electric vehicle penetration is low by market share, China will permanently be in the global top five in EV sales simply because the market is so big.

As you would expect, investors have been bullish on the Chinese electric car industry for a long time because of this.

With recent developments in China, there is even more cause to get excited, and new companies to get excited about.

Subsidy Rules Changing

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that China is changing its rules for green sales subsidies. This year, local regulations will ease up, and it will be easier for companies to sell cars outside their local province.

In the government's efforts to reduce pollution and stimulate demand for “green” products, it hopes to put five million electric and hybrid cars on the road by 2020. The relaxed guidelines will allow national and provincial subsidies to work together and knock down the consumer cost of electric vehicles by more than 30 percent.

Chinese automobile company BYD told the WSJ that these revised rules will help it increase its electric vehicle sales tenfold.

In May, the founder of China's leading auto parts company said he was willing to go bankrupt to bring the Fisker luxury electric car brand back from the dead. The considerable reduction in consumer cost will certainly help Fisker along, too.

Surprise Leader

Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is leading the electric vehicle revolution in the United States, but in China, the leader will produce much smaller, much cheaper cars.

At the beginning of 2014, Tesla announced it expected 30-35% of its global sales to come from China this year. However, in May it only imported 532 cars into China.

A company called Kandi Technologies Group (NASDAQ: KNDI), meanwhile, became the number one electric car producer in China, producing nearly three times as many electric cars as Tesla last quarter, according to a recent report.

The Chinese-language report said Kandi's small electric vehicle production hit 1,565 cars in May, with 4,300 so far this year.

Kandi's quarterly report claimed it enjoyed a 384.5% increase in electric car sales, and that sales revenue came to a grand total of $8.4 million. It did not specify sales volumes.

The company offers four electric cars, which all fall into the microcar category. The KD-5010 annd KD-5011, for example, feature 42 Volt AC induction motors with a top speed of 44 mph and can carry a driver and one passenger.

Kandi doesn't just make small cars. It's actually a pretty small company itself. Its first quarter 2014 report in mid-May showed its revenue was $40.2 million. This was an increase of 174% over the previous year's $14.7 million. The company finished out the quarter with cash and equivalents worth $20.5 million and a net loss of $14.1 million.

“We are very confident that our electric vehicle business will continue its high growth. Through our cooperation with Geely and existing advanced production capacity, we expect that we will soon become China's leading fully-integrated electric vehicle supplier,” Kandi Technology Group's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hu Xiaoming said.

The problem could be that the Tesla Model S retails for approximately $121,300 (734,000 RMB) and the Kandi KD-5011 (also known as “Coco”) retailed for just $4.600 (29,000 RMB) after green subsidies. The sticker price of the car is just $14,400 (89,800 RMB). In 2010, the average available income in urban Chinese households was $4,149 dollars.

Certainly, when the Fisker brand attempts to make its comeback in China, even its luxury vehicles are likely to be a fraction of the cost of a Tesla.

]]>Tesla expects to draw as much as 35% of its foreign revenue from China. Tiny, cheap cars subsidized by the Chinese Government could seriously stunt those expectations.TSLAKNDIhttp://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/tiny-cheap-electric-cars-beat-tesla-nasdaqtsla/2232U.S. Troops Heading Back to Iraqhttp://feeds.greenchipstocks.com/~r/greenstocks/~3/my7z2YrGmjg/2231Jeff SiegelWed, 18 Jun 2014 10:04:22 PDT2231I hate to say it, but my gut tells me the United States is heading back to Iraq.

Beyond the 275 troops already sent, I suspect that plans are already underway to “bring democracy” to the region. And if history is any indicator, we all know how this is going to turn out.

This morning I woke up to the news that ISIS insurgents attacked Iraq's biggest oil refinery, which accounts for more than 25 percent of the nation's refining capacity. Indian and Turkish construction workers are rumored to have been kidnapped, and ISIS is marching towards Baghdad.

Terror across the region has been funded by oil money, and the coffers of ISIS are overflowing. The world's dangerous reliance on oil, once again, is providing a catalyst for death and destruction. Of course, we can look in our own backyard for proof of this, too.

The US invasion of Iraq was essentially a terrorist attack which most Americans supported under the guise of freedom and democracy. When will we learn?

The Bush administration lied, nearly every member of Congress (on both sides of the aisle) went along with the swindle, big Dick Cheney made a fortune, and nearly 5,000 U.S. troops have been killed.

In total, more than one trillion tax dollars have been spent on the Iraq war with another $9 billion unaccounted for.

It has been estimated that a total of nearly 500,000 people have lost their lives from war-related causes since the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003.

Yet, even with all the blood and treasure already spilled, there are some in Washington who believe we need to go back in and “get the job done!” What that job is, I have no idea!

Meanwhile, Iraq has requested that the US stage air strikes on Sunni Muslim militants that seized the northern region of the country. Will we answer the call? Is it our responsibility to do so since we set the stage for this nightmare? And more importantly, are we ever going to stop spreading so much pain and suffering all for the sake of securing oil supplies?

If we've ever needed a reason to drastically cut our reliance on oil, this is it.

How many folks have to die before we stop pretending that renewable energy is too expensive?

How much economic instability must we endure before we realize that locally-sourced, economically and environmentally sustainable sources of transportation fuels are the cure for what ails us?

How much longer do we deny that the internal combustion engine is an outdated, inefficient contraption that leaves us all vulnerable to the deeds of those who wish to do us harm.

If you're tired of war, and you're tired of the U.S. government sending our troops to defend oil assets, and you're tired of sitting by while hundreds of thousands of innocent people are slaughtered in oil-rich nations, one of the best things you can do is invest in cleaner forms of transportation. Mass transit, electric cars, even more walkable communities. Anything that lessens our reliance on oil is a giant step towards freedom, and a giant step towards peace.

]]>One of the quickest ways to take the wind out of the sails of war is to get aggressive on alternative transportation systems and fuels. http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/the-key-to-peace-in-iraq-is-alternative-energy/2231SolarCity (NASDAQ:SCTY) Getting Aggressivehttp://feeds.greenchipstocks.com/~r/greenstocks/~3/X7Rb8Nysd20/2230Jeff SiegelTue, 17 Jun 2014 07:27:11 PDT2230We got word this morning that SolarCity (NASDAQ:SCTY) has signed a deal to acquire Silevo, a solar panel technology and manufacturing company.

With Silevo now in the fold, SolarCity is in discussions with the state of New York to build a new manufacturing plant with a targeted capacity in excess of one gigawatt – within two years. Upon completion, this will be one of the largest solar panel production plants in the world.

Although there are plenty of manufacturers in the marketplace today, this exclusive deal gives SolarCity access to a wealth of standardized product at a very attractive cost.

Here's what SolarCity reps had to say. . .

Given that there is excess supplier capacity today, this may seem counter-intuitive to some who follow the solar industry. What we are trying to address is not the lay of the land today, where there are indeed too many suppliers, most of whom are producing relatively low photonic efficiency solar cells at uncompelling costs, but how we see the future developing. Without decisive action to lay the groundwork today, the massive volume of affordable, high efficiency panels needed for unsubsidized solar power to outcompete fossil fuel grid power simply will not be there when it is needed.

SolarCity was founded to accelerate mass adoption of sustainable energy. The sun, that highly convenient and free fusion reactor in the sky, radiates more energy to the Earth in a few hours than the entire human population consumes from all sources in a year. This means that solar panels, paired with batteries to enable power at night, can produce several orders of magnitude more electricity than is consumed by the entirety of human civilization.

Even if the solar industry were only to generate 40 percent of the world’s electricity with photovoltaics by 2040, that would mean installing more than 400 GW of solar capacity per year for the next 25 years. We absolutely believe that solar power can and will become the world’s predominant source of energy within our lifetimes, but there are obviously a lot of panels that have to be manufactured and installed in order for that to happen. The plans we are announcing today, while substantial compared to current industry, are small in that context.

Clearly, the market was pleased with SolarCity's announcement. The stock soared more than six percent in morning trading. Of course, the stock is also down considerably from its March, 2014 high of more than $77.

I actually commented on this about a month ago, noting that it was time to buy shares. I remain bullish on SolarCity and continue to stand by my one-year price target of $85.

]]>Despite a tough couple of months for the stock, SolarCity continues to make aggressive moves in the solar space. Investors liked the news this morning, and the stock is up more than six percent. SCTYhttp://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/solarcity-nasdaqscty-stock-soars-on-acquisition-news/2230Ukraine Nuclear Reactors at Risk of Meltdownhttp://feeds.greenchipstocks.com/~r/greenstocks/~3/O1RB04tUtn4/2229Jeff SiegelFri, 13 Jun 2014 12:07:38 PDT2229Although plenty of folks concerned about climate change champion nuclear power as an important part of the world's energy mix, I continue to find the reliance on nuclear to be a bit short-sighted.

As I've written in the past, while it may not be politically correct, I have a hard time feeling comfortable with unstable regions building out their nuclear power capabilities.

This holds particularly true in certain parts of Africa and the Middle East, where stability is not a common occurrence. This also is a concern in Ukraine, where political forces are eager to relive the glory days of European dictators and mass murder. The result of this has been a new level of instability and violence that puts Ukraine's 15 Soviet-style nuclear reactors at risk of failure or sabotage.

Remember Chernobyl?

About half of Ukraine's energy needs are met by its nuclear reactors – all of which went online in the 1980s and are similar in design to the reactor that blew at Chernobyl.

But Michael Sailer of the German Nuclear Waste Management Commission told Deutsche Welle that beyond that normal risk associated with these older nuclear plants, in Ukraine, there is a potential for human error due to less motivated nuclear operators than elsewhere and the fact that the security features of these reactors are a lot weaker than those of modern reactors.

Of course, worries over human error and antiquated design seem to be less stressful for those who fear sabotage.

...it's not just the maintenance of the technical infrastructure and the motivation of the engineers operating the reactors that has the experts worried. The continued fighting between government and pro-Russian forces including the seizure of buildings raises the risk that the country's nuclear plants could also be drawn into the mix.

The older Soviet-style reactors are already less safe than those in Western Europe, Lothar Hahn, former director of the Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS), Germany's leading nuclear safety research center, told DW. "But this is even overshadowed by the danger of sabotage or war. Then you would immediately have a dramatic situation on your hands."

The experts did not want to describe possible sabotage or war scenarios on the record, but stressed that they consider this a real danger. "You don't need an army, only 20 to 30 highly trained men," said Hahn. "These things are totally incalculable."

I know pro-nuclear types will criticize my take on this. And that's fine.

But no matter how you slice it, despite the superior capacity factor of nuclear power, the more nuclear power plants the world develops, the less safe we all become.

Michael Sailer wrote. . .

Once you have decided to operate a nuclear power plant or like in this case a nuclear reactor park, you must guarantee you don't have unstable social situations and you definitely can't have a war.

]]>Fear of nuclear reactor meltdowns worry experts in Ukraine.GRShttp://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/are-we-about-to-see-ukraines-next-chernobyl/2229Offering up the Superchargerhttp://feeds.greenchipstocks.com/~r/greenstocks/~3/kJPo5geWzNI/2228Tim ConneallyThu, 12 Jun 2014 07:08:27 PDT2228It's difficult for a new class of vehicles to take root if there is an inadequate fueling infrastructure.

It's one of the common complaints issued against compressed natural gas cars: With only 500 fueling stations in the country, there simply isn't enough of an infrastructure in the US for it to be attractive enough for consumers.

Electric cars are only slightly better off.

Charging stations are now a common feature in urban areas and around major American highways. There are more than 20,000 charging stations across the country, with hundreds more being added every month, so it's got a huge lead on CNG. However, there are also a number of major issues affecting this infrastructure at present.

Tesla Motors (NASDAQ: TSLA) wants to correct a couple of the biggest issues, and it could lead a revolution when it does.

A Solution

Right now, there are a couple of big problems. First, there isn't a single business model for EV charging away from home. Second, there are different quick-charging interfaces and standards for different types of electric car.

Currently, when you buy an electric car in the United States, you are getting a charging experience determined by whomever manufactured your car and its batteries.

At the UK launch of the new left-hand drive Model S this week, Elon Musk said he wants to share the design for Tesla's Supercharger charging with other electric car companies. This would include both the actual charging system, and the novel business model it uses.

Musk said:

“The intent of the Supercharger network is not to create a walled garden. Any other manufacturer that's interested in using them, we'd be happy to accommodate. It's just that they need to be able to accept the power level of the Superchargers, which is currently 135kW and rising, so any car needs to meet the Supercharger standard...They'd also need to agree with the business model, which is: We don't charge people on a per-charge basis. They'd need to contribute to the capital costs proportional to their fleet's usage of the network. So we think that's pretty fair.”

Tesla bills its Supercharger stations as “the fastest charging station on the planet,” and promises that a Model S owner can charge up their battery 50 percent in just 20 minutes. The Chevrolet Volt, by comparison, would take two hours to charge that much, and the Nissan Leaf would take about four.

Really, the speed of the charge is secondary to its business model.

Any Tesla Model S with an 85 kWh battery can utilize Supercharger stations at no cost. Owners of the 60 kWh model have to pay between $2,000 and $2,500 in an additional fee to have unlimited access to Supercharger stations.

The idea is that owners charge their cars mostly at home, and then utilize Supercharger stations on longer trips or in cases of unplanned energy depletion. Tesla doesn't recommend a reliance upon Supercharging.

The Problem with this Solution

At Tesla's shareholder meeting in the first wek of June, Musk said the idea to offer up Supercharging to other companies was going to be "fairly controversial."

It's controversial because Tesla's Supercharger system is proprietary. That is to say, they are patented Tesla property, rather than an open standard. For the last three years, a couple of quick-charge standards have been jockeying for industry leadership.

Japanese companies Nissan, Mitsubishi, Fuji Heavy Industries (Subaru), and Toyota have banded together to support the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) DC connector for quick charging. This group and its charging stations go by the name CHAdeMO.

The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has its own type of quick charger, and the backing of General Motors, Ford Motor Co., Volkswagen, and BMW AG. The 2014 Chevrolet Spark EV and BMW i3 were the first electric vehicles in the US to utilize the SAE Combo Charger quick charging standard.

By default, Tesla's charger cannot plug into either CHAdeMO or SAE stations without an external adaptor. Tesla sells the CHAdeMO adaptor for $1000 and the SAE J1772 for $95.

These quick charge connections can be thought of like mobile phone data cables. Back in the early days of smartphones, there were any number of different cables to connect your phone to your computer. Eventually, smartphone manufactures banded together and agreed to all use the same Micro USB interface. Now you'd be hard pressed to find a phone that doesn't utilize that type of cable.

Except Apple's iPhone, of course.

Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) uses a proprietary system that can only be used with Apple-made devices, and it controls where it's used and how software developers can interact with it.

It's a so-called "walled garden," and though Elon Musk has made public remarks saying he didn't want the Supercharger to become a walled garden, the similarity with Apple cannot be overlooked.

]]>There isn't a single dominant quick-charge standard for Electric Vehicles in the United States...Not yet, at least.AAPLTSLASAETEPCOhttp://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/tesla-nasdaq-tsla-getting-aggressive-on-charging-stations/2228Lawmakers Scramble to Impress Elon Muskhttp://feeds.greenchipstocks.com/~r/greenstocks/~3/iQAqzLwKv5o/2227Jeff SiegelFri, 06 Jun 2014 08:09:40 PDT2227If Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) was a woman, it would be a cross between Salma Hayek, Olivia Munn and Mila Kunis.

The way politicians are lining up to impress Elon Musk, with all their promissory gifts of incentives, grants and expedited environmental reviews, it seems these folks will do nearly anything to woo the man dangling the $5 billion carrot.

While I'm certainly happy to see lawmakers, particularly in Texas and Arizona, do backflips in an attempt to attract an electric car battery manufacturing facility to their states, I have to admit that these efforts to impress shouldn't really be necessary.

More Money, More Promises

Yesterday afternoon, California lawmakers announced that they were going to make an effort to bring the Gigafactory to the Golden State. As reported in the LA Times. . .

A bipartisan pair of state senators – Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Ted Gaines (R-Rocklin) –are sponsoring "urgency" legislation, expressing "intent to provide financial and regulatory incentives to expedite groundbreaking and construction of the plant in California."

The bill, SB 1309, so far contains no details of what those incentives could be, but experts said they are likely to include tax credits, workforce training grants and streamlined permitting and environmental reviews.

"Everything is on the table..." Gaines said in a statement. "We need to show Tesla that we'll cut through the knot of red tape that frustrates companies in this state and prove that California is open for business."

You know, if there wasn't so much red tape to begin with, and taxes weren't already so overbearing, no one would have to introduce special “urgent” legislation. And this goes far beyond the Gigafactory, too.

Middleman Required

You may remember back in March, when I wrote the following words. . .

In the Garden State, where Governor Chris Christie rules over hurricane clean-ups and bridge closures, Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) is no longer allowed to sell its vehicles.

Why?

Because apparently, doing so is in direct violation to a law that requires all vehicles to be sold through middle men. The law, which supporters claim exists to help customers, is the antithesis of free market capitalism. It dictates that if you want to sell a car, you must first go through a government-sanctioned outlet.

Of course, Governor Christie is big shot conservative, right? After all, he was just at CPAC boasting his conservative credentials. But you know as well as I do that talk is cheap.

In response to the recent decision to force a successful company out of business, one of Christie's yes man said that Tesla would need legislation to establish direct-sales operations.

Why the hell does a business owner need to seek special legislation to sell something?

Chris Christie claims to be a free market advocate. But from what I see, he's proving to be little more than another fake conservative who bows before the alter of special interests.

Well, it looks as if now, three lawmakers from New Jersey are introducing a bill that would allow Tesla to sell its vehicles directly to consumers.

How nice of them, to allow someone to sell a product without having to be forced to go through a middleman, as currently mandated by a law that was basically written by the dealerships who fund campaigns in New Jersey.

What a joke.

Elon Musk has turned the auto manufacturing game completely on its head. And I must admit, it brings me much joy to watch all these old-guard internal combustion loyalists and on-the-take politicians run around like headless chickens desperate to find their beaks in Elon Musk's wallet.

]]>Not only has Tesla completely transformed the image of what electric cars should be, it has also instigated a four-way battle to attract the company's $5 billion Gigafactory. TSLAhttp://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/why-tesla-nasdaqtsla-is-like-a-beautiful-woman/2227Modi has history of Green Powerhttp://feeds.greenchipstocks.com/~r/greenstocks/~3/HJkncYbRtN4/2226Tim ConneallySun, 01 Jun 2014 11:54:49 PDT2226India's new prime minister Narendra Modi has a tough job in front of him. The country's last prime minister, Manmohan Singh, left his position as the rupee dramatically fell in value after an extended period of stagflation. With growth between four and five percent, and inflation at nine percent and rising, India's path forward does not look promising.

There was a time when India was slated to be the next China. With a huge population, and a growing middle class investing nearly 30% of its wealth, India had an annual growth of around 10% per year.

The international business textbooks I read in my college days unilaterally painted India as a potential economic wonderland. Unfortunately, it never really lived up to its promise.

The Economist this week describes India's slowdown in the following way:

“The rates of savings and investment have dipped and their mix has deteriorated. High inflation has led households to buy gold, shifting money away from the banking system where it can be productively employed. And a mixture of bureaucracy, excessive leverage, incompetence and corruption has led private companies (whose spending tends to have the most bang for the rupee) to halve their investments as a share of GDP. What has been invested has often been tangled in red tape and graft.”

Modi's bread and butter as chief minister of the Gujarat province was infrastructure development, and he helped whip the state's failing power grid into shape. By building dams, for example, Modi's party took credit for raising groundwater levels while all other Indian states were falling.

As prime minister of India, Modi is expected to push stalled infrastructure projects to break the state of stagflation.

Modi's First Energy Moves

This week, Modi appointed Piyush Goyal as the minister of state for power, coal and renewable energy. Goyal is a chartered accountant and investment banker, and also treasurer of Modi's political party, the BJP; so his main experience is in finance and policy, not explicitly in energy.

But Goyal's intention is to “debottleneck the system” where energy shortages, energy theft, and blackouts are commonplace. He believes that “privatization will play an important role” in turning it around.

Goyal has said he will study the model used by Modi in Gujarat and use it for an overhaul of the entire energy system.

Gujarat Model

A large part of the “Gujarat Model” was appropriate allocation of energy for the agricultural sector, which often requires long transmission lines that were vulnerable to power theft or connected to unmetered nodes.

Almost one quarter of India's electricity goes to the agricultural sector, and in rural areas in Gujarat, as much as 70 percent of the power running down these lines was stolen.

While Modi's government was able to cut down on theft by increasing police presence, this is not always the most economically feasible solution. An off-grid solar policy could provide a solution to power theft by localizing energy generation for rural and agricultural needs.In 2011, Gujarat became home to the $2.3 billion Charanka solar park, which is the fourth largest in the world in terms of nominal power, and could become the biggest in the world if it reaches its 500 MW buildout goal.

The BJP has a comprehensive energy policy similar to the Obama administration's so-called “all in” policy, where all forms of power generation are given equal consideration. This includes the dominant fossil fuel sources, as well nuclear and renewables.

Modi is no stranger to tackling difficult problems, and he says “Fighting climate change calls for innovation, cooperation and willpower to make the changes that the world needs.”

]]>India's power grid is unreliable at best, and a total shambles at worst. The new prime minister promises a revamp.http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/indias-new-pm-signals-a-renewables-boom/2226When Politics Trump Sciencehttp://feeds.greenchipstocks.com/~r/greenstocks/~3/1t60e0S3y8g/2225Jeff SiegelTue, 27 May 2014 08:29:55 PDT2225The same congressmen who bitched and moaned about the government picking winners and losers in the energy game have just proved to be the hypocrites I've always claimed they were.

By a vote of 231-192, GOP lawmakers passed an amendment that forbids the Defense Department from spending money on renewable energy.

While military officials claim that it is in the best interests of the U.S. military to utilize more renewable energy, a bunch of politicians have decided they know better, and pushed through this ridiculous amendment.

West Virginia Representative David McKinley was the sponsor of the amendment, so let's take a look to see where he gets his bread buttered. . .

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the congressman has landed $484,379 from the mining industry and $161,000 from the oil and gas industry. So basically, more than a half million dollars from fossil fuel interests.

Four of McKinley's top five contributors from 2009 through 2014 are also coal companies, which have ponied up $151,400 for access to the congressman.

Stupid Climate Change!

The amendment also states that the Defense Department cannot spend money on matters related to climate change.

Rep. McKinley claims that climate change is a political issue, saying . .

“Our climate is obviously changing; it has always been changing. With all the unrest around the global [sic], why should Congress divert funds from the mission of our military and national security to support a political ideology. This amendment will ensure we maximize our military might without diverting funds for a politically motivated agenda.”

And here's what 16 military experts had to say in a report issued last week. . .

Scientists around the globe are increasing their confidence, narrowing their projections, and reaffirmingthe likely causes of climate change. As described in Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment: “Heat-trapping gases already in the atmosphere have committed us to a hotter future with more climate-related impacts over the next few decades. The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases emitted globally, now and in the future.” Some in the political realm continue to debate the cause of a warming planet and demand more data. Yet MAB member General Gordon Sullivan, United States Army, Retired, has noted: “Speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.”

Climate mitigation and adaptation efforts are emerging in various places around the world, but the extent of these efforts to mitigate and adapt to the projections are insufficient to avoid significant potential water, food, and energy insecurity; political instability; extreme weather events; and other manifestations of climate change. Coordinated, wide-scale, and well-executed actions to limit heat-trapping gases and increase resilience to help prevent and protect against the worst projected climate change impacts are required – now.

Now look, I don't write these words in an attempt to convince you that the analysis of climate change data on the part of the IPCC or the military is sound. However, for Rep. McKinley to introduce such an amendment shows just how full of shit most of these politicians are. McKinley's not concerned about science or objective expert analysis. His interest, like nearly all politicians is to make sure that filthy lucre continues to flow in. And to deny that this is the truth would be naïve.

It's one thing to disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change, but it's another altogether to go out of your way to ensure that renewable energy is excluded when it comes to government handouts.

Of course, if you're a regular reader of these pages, you know I have no interest in the government being involved in any of this. Whether it's oil and coal or solar and wind – these industries should be left to compete or complement on their own merits. And it's because they don't that oil and gas continue to get special treatment on an uneven playing field where dirty money is God and entrepreneurship and innovation is punished.

]]>It should come as no surprise that sketchy politicians have passed an amendment to ban renewable energy. http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/new-anti-renewable-energy-amendment-passes/2225Don't Fear Electric Car Progress. Embrace It!http://feeds.greenchipstocks.com/~r/greenstocks/~3/lufEPeYNBF8/2224Jeff SiegelTue, 27 May 2014 07:00:54 PDT2224Back in 2011, I wrote the following words. . .

...this first round of electric vehicle sales is proving to be quite successful. Especially considering that this is really the first year that we've had the opportunity to even purchase a mass-produced electric vehicle delivered by a major auto manufacturer.

Take the all-electric Nissan LEAF, for example.

So far, Nissan has sold about 8,500 LEAFs in the U.S.

How does that number stack up against previous disruptive vehicle technologies?

Well, when Toyota first launched the Prius Hybrid in 1997, the Japanese automaker sold only 3,000 units.

So in its first year, Nissan has sold about 5,500 more units of an all-electric vehicle. Not too shabby. Especially considering that the LEAF carries with it the burden of range anxiety. Something that Prius owners have never had to deal with.

Today, I read a recent report from analytics firm IHS, which indicates that my early analysis was sound. Although this report did come out last week, I thought I'd share with you some of what IHS published. Check it out. . .

Despite falling short of previous expectations, global sales of electric vehicles (EVs) actually are progressing at a much faster pace than hybrid cars did during the same stage of their deployment, paving the way for higher demand as more EV options arrive on the market this year and beyond.

During the fourth year after its introduction in 2000, the original hybrid-Toyota’s Prius-attained cumulative sales of more than 52,000, according to IHS Automotive, part of IHS Inc. In the fourth year after its introduction, in 2013, cumulative sales of the Nissan Leaf EV approached 100,000. For the Chevrolet Volt/Ampera plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV), cumulative sales during the same period were almost 70,000.

Altogether, the Leaf and Volt/Ampera saw more than three times the cumulative sales total for the Prius in the fourth year after introduction, as presented in the attached figure. “We’re still in the early stages of the EV market,” said Ben Scott, analyst for IHS Automotive.

I continue to remain bullish on electric vehicle growth, although for investors it's still pretty tricky to make a few bucks in the market. Unless you don't mind day trading some of these stocks. But that's not really my bag.

In the meantime, pay close attention as to how this market progresses. Because I'm telling you now, in a few more years, you're going to be seeing a lot more of these vehicles on our roads. And they're going to impress the hell out of you.